It is over and I...

I think Al just gave a textbook description of liberal democrats

it certainly doesn't offend me unlike others on this list with my "demoncrap" comment

Oh, it doesn't offend me. "Demoncrap" is hardly worth getting offended over. It just makes you sound like an idiot.

Added by edit: Please note I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying that you are presenting yourself as one.

I was not aware that some folks considered G Dub to be the next Hitler. Although, if you count his dad's time in office, they will have completed 12 years of a Reich.

Now I can see why politics are not discussed at dinner.

Tom

I grew up dreaming glimpses of the future after reading Carl Sagan, Isacc Asimov, Arthur C Clarke and their likes. Thought there is hope for man.
Nah! I think, I better get back to “Alice in Wonderland”

Anyone who thinks for themselves instead of parroting the popular right wing rhetoric must be a liberal democrat then. I analyze what's happening around me and I form my own conclusions. I know that's something foreign to most conservative republicans, as they're used to having their opinions canned for them.
The repubican party is the master of the well spun lie. By saying something over and over again it becomes the "truth", even when it's contradicted by all empirical observations or the evidence. Perfect case in point - WMD's and the Saddam/Al Queda/911 connection. Or that perennial favorite of mine, the "liberal media". What liberal media? Where are they? What have they influenced? There's no leftist banners flying; college campuses aren't in flames over Iraq as they were over Vietnan; and Bush and his right wing still rules. Yet you continue to cling to this idiotic myth. I have two words for you, "Sinclair Group" or how about "Clear Channel", consortiums of ultra-conservatives who heavily support Bush (financially and ideologically) and regularly reach half the homes in this country. You rale on about Dan Rather, but what about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, to name a few? These ranting right wing demagogues reach more viewers and influence more minds than Dan could ever hope to. I'd go on, but since republicans are programmed to ignore anything that contradicts "The Word", why bother...Heil Bush!!

You ask "what liberal media"? I think what is generally referred to by this phrase is the kind of reality that stares us in the face when we compare the presidential endorsements of the 100 most widely circulated newspapers in the USA. Easily 95% of them were pro-Kerry (ergo, "liberal"). Yet the voting populace, despite feeling economically threatened and hugely disgusted with ongoing bungled war efforts, was less than 50% for Kerry. Why the enormous (and consistent) discrepancy? It is, as they're all saying now, deeply ideological (moral) in origin. To merely say that the Republican electorate is the stupid half of America is unprovable, and worthy of a five-year-old. The same imbalance between what we hear (from the media) and what we vote is manifest with respect to the entertainment industry -- certainly not notable for high intelligence. Likewise with respect to nearly all major network commentators (the vehemence of conservative talk radio, a relatively recent introduction, is, after all, reactionary to this long-standing state of affairs), and organized labor (are we going to argue that unions magically draw all the intelligent ones? -- yea, whatever). Bottom line: one doesn't need conspiracy theories, just two eyes and a brain, to observe that the dominant voices in America are not proportionate to the views of Americans on the whole.

95 of a 100 most widely circulated papers "endorsed" Kerry? Where do you come by this info? Surely, you don't read all 100 of these liberal rags everyday! Or are you confusing "endorse" with "predict"? As to the discrepancy being morally based - Where is the morality in starting a pointless war, spending billions and getting tens of thousands killed when it in no way increases our security and hasn't helped us find Bin Laden, and then lying about the reasons for it? Yes, calling half the electorate stupid is wrong... I think credulous, tunnel-visioned, gullable, narrow-minded, or blind are all much better descriptions. Besides, even smart people can be brainwashed. And since you mentioned it, any worthy "five-year-old" could see through Bush's BS. On the subject of "dominant voices" - Nothing is dominant if it doesn't significantly effect a process or outcome. Since G.W. has been re-elected and the repubs have an even greater control of congress now, your point is moot. You guys impeached Clinton for lying about sex. Bush gets away with starting wars, questionable dealings with the Saudi's, Halliburton, and a 2.5 trillion dollar and counting deficit with no questions asked. If this had happened under Clinton, Tom Daley would have led a lynch mob to the White House. I HAVE opened my eyes and I see the republicans of today as sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, double-standard-wielding hypocrites!

Whoa there Al -- just to clarify where I'm coming from, I don't vote Republican, I didn't vote for Bush and I certainly don't assume that whatever Bush is up to in Iraq is morally blameless. But I AM saying, from a nonpartisan perspective, that there is an obvious discrepancy between what most media say and what the people say with their ballots. That's the brute fact that demands some explanation. Is it as simple as "country people don't run newspapers, while city people do"? Somehow I doubt it. Anyhow, what is it about the cities (I'm thinking, of course, about the notorious red/blue maps) that makes people think differently than they do in the rural areas? In saying that the media/voter discrepancy is moral in origin I was not suggesting that morality is entirely on the side of the Republican majority, or that the mideast action is ethically irreproachable. But so deep a divide must be based on moral differences, not differences in intelligence. People aren't smarter just because they live in a blue county. But it is conceivable that differences in moral outlook arise from differences in the urban/rural context.

Many periodicals and papers predicted a close race and that Kerry had a good chance of winning - and it wasn't exactly a Bush landslide, was it? My point is that that the conservatives who now prevail see any deviation from their rhetoric as "liberal" (intended as a pejorative), "unpatriotic", "unamerican", or "left wing". Regardless of what epithet the right wants to attach to the mainstream media, the fact is that it's not the insidious threat they make it out to be. The day is coming when peaceful dissent in the U.S. will be a crime and the Republican Broadcasting Network will be the only legal source of information. It's happened before and it can certainly happen again. Anyone who thinks that we're immune from this senario because we're "America the Great" is deluding themselve's. When over half the electorate can forgo critical thinking and essentially re-elect a man based not on his record (dubious at best), but on blind idolatry and jingoism, it's time to worry and take a hard look at where we're heading. Perhaps you consider this over-reacting, but no doubt many Germans of the early 1930's dismissed Herr Hilter's ardent detractors as doomsayers and loonies, too. Thurgood Marshall once said that the night doesn't come all at once - There's a twilight during which at first you don't notice anything has changed - only to find yourself lost in the darkness. It think it's time to invest in some candles.